“Dummy Don” talks about jobs, taxes, and our economy, to an entrepreneur.

You are good at replying. Thanks. Now, I am thinking, –why haven’t these politicians, and President Obama, sat down with a large transparent town house meeting, or meetings, with many common entrepreneurs as yourself, –and find out what would work from the people who really ought to know. What is presented could be gone over by those economic “experts,” and if there are flaws to the proposals offered up for consideration, than they could publicly explain why; and then that could be looked at by all, and the cycle would go around until the best solution is met.

Unfortunately, what happens instead, is that Obama travels all around the country giving controlled campaign speeches, which is a bit lame because he has lost most of his credibility, from his earlier campaign speeches –that have not held up to time, honesty or true transparency. I also get frustrated with both partys when they often do not clarify what they are talking about. Such as, “We absolutely will not raise any taxes on the American people!” The public needs to understand exactly what people they are talking about. And when Obama says that he is “giving employers a payroll tax break, holiday” that what is really meant is that he is stopping monies that are normally going into Social Security (and then a short time down the road, he is pointing out how Social Security is running out of money.) As you might have guessed, I am really a dummy in all this, as far as being any expert. However; I have not lost my ability to THINK.

Now, I would be interested in what you think, about my “Bookend Economics” theory. I had been discussing this with some real pros in this field, and I was shocked to get a reply back saying that what I was writing made a lot of sense, saying “Now, if you can only convince the President and Congress…” I say, our Capitalism society is very good, –but we need to place BOOK-ENDS at each end of the spectrum, which can be moved left and right according to the financial health that our economy is in.. That way no deserving citizen is allowed to become too poor, or too rich. However, there would be a good span in-between, and as wide as our country chooses it to be, — from one bookend to the other bookend, a span that is open for adjustment when times, or the future, calls for it. That way, we all have something to work for, personally and as a country as a whole, not controlled by negative powers and forces often seen at play in our lives today. A “me-myself-and-I” people mentality is not a foundation that can last, or allow our freedoms to ring. So, what do you think?

(ps: Watch for my new comic strip, “Dummy Don,”  who is really Super Don in disguise  Sometimes it is hard for people to know the difference, and the two characters often become intertwined; but it is easier for those who have eyes that see, and ears that hear.)  –dc

 

Obama Care

          Obama Care

“Flat Tax” (??)

It  amazes me how many people advocate that we go to a “Flat Tax,” in place of our present system. (??)
I am just a dummy in economics, but what on earth are they thinking?

The idea here is that everyone across the board just pays a simple flat tax, such as 15% or 20%, no matter what their income is. The claim is that this would be a lot fairer to all. (??) I don’t get it! Am I from another planet, or what? Well, the Bible does tell me that I am in this world, but not of it, that this earth is not my home. I believe it!

THINK…. If a person is living on Social Security, for instance, had to pay 20% of their income in taxes, –then what percentage of their income goes for basic needs, such as housing, food, medical, transportation, and such? The answer is 100%, or more. Now how much of a billionaire’s income, taxed at 20%, would go to pay for the same basic needs? I say the answer would be so miniscule, it would be but a small drop in a bucket! A poor person has to pay the same amount for a loaf of bread, or a gallon of gas, that a millionaire does. If a rich person is fined for a traffic ticket, or some bank or credit card charge or whatever, he feels practically nothing. If a poor person faces the same penalty, it could very well be the entire cost of a basic need. Rich people love to preach Old Testament tithing, such as 10%, supposedly giving them the freedom to do whatever with the other 90%. A poor person giving 10% of their income may not have enough money to buy groceries for the week.

It amazes me how people want to extract money from the poor, those who can least afford it, while giving more and more to the rich. It is bad enough now, with Obama’s freeze on Social Security, and even Republicans now stopping a proposed mere single payment of $250. for the year to seniors living on Social Security.

But, what do I know? I don’t know anything about economics. Maybe someone who does can explain. I would appreciate it. –dc

(ps: Please bear in mind, that I am talking here about “Flat Tax,” and not complaining for the poor. There are many good government programs to help those in need, and charitable organizations, and wonderful people who care. I thank God for my Social Security, for my home, my family, and country, my faith, and my doctors, the VA, and my auto mechanic. –dc)

Rolling Back Tax Cuts for the Rich —would hurt jobs?

I am just a dummy on economics, but I am still able to reason and think for myself.  Maybe someone more knowledgeable than  I am might be so kind as to explain.

I do not understand how denying Bush tax cuts for the rich, or super rich, would hurt jobs.   The explanation, it seems, is always the idea that if the super rich aren’t allowed to wallow in their excesses than they will have no money or incentive to hire people and create more jobs.  I don’t get it.  Business expenses are not taxable.  Profits are taxable.  So, it seems to me the opposite would hold true, that the real incentive would be to invest those excesses, rather than pay high taxes.  –dc

Cash for Clunkers

Cash for Clunkers, –This is the best those great minds in Washington could come up with?

Print more money, borrow and spend more than we have, and thereby increase our national debt all the more. Pass the money out to people of means, to destroy their used cars to buy new ones. Well, this was great for those on the receiving end. But, what about those citizens who are not so well off, so privileged?

There has got to be something wrong with destroying perfectly good cars, in light of so much need. What kind of stewardship is this? What about those with lower incomes who cannot afford new cars, under the guidelines? What about the used car dealers? What about the used parts business? Would it have hurt to at least have left a few scraps behind for the working poor?  –dc

"Lesson 9, Mrs. Brundy, don't forget to unbuckle your seatbelt."

 

Cash for Clunkers?

Cash for Clunkers?

Now, let me get this straight:

Our government, is borrowing exuberant amounts of money in order to give cash to people for destroying their old cars, in order to to buy new cars?

I don’t understand the logic here. Spending more money that we don’t have for the purpose of destorying used cars is going to help our economy?

What’s next? –Will the government print new money for people to throw away day-old food, to buy new food in order to prosper super markets? And so on and on, –where will it all end?

Cash for Clunkers? –I wonder who are the clunkers here?

According to a recent study, new midsize cars will will take a big financial hit if they get into traffic accidents even at speeds as low as 3 mph. So, I suppose now, this will be yet another boon to our economy, by putting more cash into the hands of the collision repair industry.  –dc

(Be sure to click on this illustration, in order to see it in all it’s glory.)